The latest twist in the Schiavo case.......

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

They might hire good judges, but in the end, they might screw up and have their own agenda.

What, you mean "the Constitution"?

 

Even the judges who wrote dissents cited case law that they thought justified re-hearing the case. Go witch-hunting for your "activist judges" elsewhere. These judges are just doing their jobs to the letter, and the president isn't stupid enough to issue a meaningless executive order that would be ruled unconstitutional.

[Guest MikeSC]

They might hire good judges, but in the end, they might screw up and have their own agenda.

What, you mean "the Constitution"?

 

Even the judges who wrote dissents cited case law that they thought justified re-hearing the case. Go witch-hunting for your "activist judges" elsewhere. These judges are just doing their jobs to the letter, and the president isn't stupid enough to issue a meaningless executive order that would be ruled unconstitutional.

The judges decided to completely ignore what the Congress wanted when they passed the law.

-=Mike

...Because hearing this case is SO much more burdensome than any of the dozens of appeals death row inmates get. I guess she'd have been better off suffering brain damage after slaughtering somebody...

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

And good for them for doing so.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Then it's truly fascinating how desperate the courts are for Terri to die.

 

Well, the courts overstepping their bounds is the usual fare for them.

-=Mike

You're either some kind of gimmick or you really don't know anything.

 

You have no facts to give. You just keep dragging it back, through the mud, to the subjective issues like the right to live to and whether the husband is a smarmy bastard or not.

 

No one here thinks she's going to be able to just just snap out of it - we know the facts, we know her condition, we know what's going on and her life ended some 7-15 years ago already.

 

I don't care if you agree with me or not, the facts are facts and they are not being kind to you in this discussion.

[Guest MikeSC]

And good for them for doing so.

Because "checks and balances" are SO overrated.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Then it's truly fascinating how desperate the courts are for Terri to die.

 

Well, the courts overstepping their bounds is the usual fare for them.

              -=Mike

You're either some kind of gimmick or you really don't know anything.

 

You have no facts to give. You just keep dragging it back, through the mud, to the subjective issues like the right to live to and whether the husband is a smarmy bastard or not.

 

No one here thinks she's going to be able to just just snap out of it - we know the facts, we know her condition, we know what's going on and her life ended some 7-15 years ago already.

 

I don't care if you agree with me or not, the facts are facts and they are not being kind to you in this discussion.

There is one fact you don't have:

 

You have NO clue if she wanted to die.

 

None.

 

Which is the ONLY fact that matters. Using the precedent THIS case laid down, a spouse now has the right to kill any spouse that becomes incapacitated. And they need no proof to actually back up their assertions, just a statement allegedly made at some point in the past.

 

Even BETTER --- you can claim you have the spousal privilege to kill your spouse, but you don't even have to honor your wedding vows (you know, the whole "in sickness and in health" line).

 

Wow, what a GREAT system. Feminists will eventually bitch about this --- but fuck them, they chose to sit on the sidelines while a woman was sentenced to death by her unfaithful husband.

 

Don't let your desire for murder-of-convenience cloud that one reality.

 

We do not know if she wanted to die. We know that she had no voice in the FL courts and the federal courts have refused to actually LISTEN to her side. We know that Congress simply asked the courts to HEAR the case and they refused.

-=Mike

...The euthanasia crowd got their Roe v Wade. May God help us...

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

The bill passed by Congress gave the Schindlers the right to take the case before a federal court. It did not in any way force that court to consider the case. If anything, the court is being judicially conservative.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

There is one fact you don't have:

 

You have NO clue if she wanted to die.

 

None.

Actually, I did, but you arrogantly no-sold it on the last page.

Furthermore, she has said she didn't want to be on life support forever and ever. This evidence has appeared in court via testimony from people who are not her husband or her parents.

 

Using the precedent THIS case laid down, a spouse now has the right to kill any spouse that becomes incapacitated.

 

You are so concerned about precedents, but are not concerned about the precedent that Tom DeLay is trying to make a decision instead of the people she's lived with.

 

And if you don't believe it's a politically-fueled spectacle designed to make the GOP politicians look like some kind of saviors, where were they when this kid was killed off due to a law signed by Dubya back when he was in Texas? Mind you, that child could feel pain.

 

You're also terribly unconcerned about the precedent of the feds trampling state rights.

 

Even BETTER --- you can claim you have the spousal privilege to kill your spouse, but you don't even have to honor your wedding vows (you know, the whole "in sickness and in health" line).

 

There's nothing illegal about that. It's kind of like "Thou shalt honor thy parents." Good advice, but not hammered into law.

 

...The euthanasia crowd got their Roe v Wade. May God help us...

 

Sounds like this is more what you're really concerned about. Figures.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Jon Stewart defines an "activist judge" as "a judge who rules against you". Seems to fit pretty well in this case.

[Guest MikeSC]

There is one fact you don't have:

 

You have NO clue if she wanted to die.

 

None.

Actually, I did, but you arrogantly no-sold it on the last page.

Furthermore, she has said she didn't want to be on life support forever and ever. This evidence has appeared in court via testimony from people who are not her husband or her parents.

The "source" for her "she wants to die", last time I checked, were HIS family.

 

Nice of you to gloss over that.

Using the precedent THIS case laid down, a spouse now has the right to kill any spouse that becomes incapacitated.

You are so concerned about precedents, but are not concerned about the precedent that Tom DeLay is trying to make a decision instead of the people she's lived with.

When there is a legitimate question about what she wants, then the gov't HAS to protect those least able to protect themselves.

And if you don't believe it's a politically-fueled spectacle designed to make the GOP politicians look like some kind of saviors, where were they when this kid was killed off due to a law signed by Dubya back when he was in Texas? Mind you, that child could feel pain.

 

You're also terribly unconcerned about the precedent of the feds trampling state rights.

The case you cite is also misleading, but that's par for the course.

 

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/m...politan/3094518

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/healthlaw...upport_sto.html --- written by one of the people who WROTE the Texas law, so he knows what he's talking about.

http://www.leanleft.com/archives/2005/03/20/4103/

 

Sun also required a respirator. Terri does not.

 

Nice try.

Even BETTER --- you can claim you have the spousal privilege to kill your spouse, but you don't even have to honor your wedding vows (you know, the whole "in sickness and in health" line).

There's nothing illegal about that. It's kind of like "Thou shalt honor thy parents." Good advice, but not hammered into law.

If somebody is going to claim that they should have a voice in their spouse's decision, then they should honor their marriage vows.

 

If they abuse their vows, then the family who IS NOT cheating on the patient should be given precedence over the man who IS cheating on the patient.

...The euthanasia crowd got their Roe v Wade. May God help us...

Sounds like this is more what you're really concerned about. Figures.

Yeah, the thought of people being killed when it's convenient is disconcerting.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Anybody know what Constitutional justification the strict-constructionist Republicans are using to explain this law that was just passed about this?

 

Interstate commerce clause perhaps?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...728_memo20.html

 

WASHINGTON — Republican leaders believe their attention to the Terri Schiavo issue could pay dividends with Christian conservatives whose support they covet in the 2006 midterm elections, according to a GOP memo intended to be seen only by senators.

 

The one-page memo, distributed to Republican senators by party leaders, called the debate over Schiavo legislation "a great political issue" that would appeal to the party's base, or core, supporters. The memo singled out Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who is up for re-election next year.

 

"This is an important moral issue, and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue," said the memo, reported by ABC News and later given to The Washington Post. "This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a co-sponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats."

 

That's probably not what you're looking for, though

BTW, just to clarify, the memo --- yes, this is a true shocker --- appears to be a fraud. Apparently, what happened to Rather didn't teach a lesson.

 

http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2005/03...ate_part_i.html

 

And, is it REALLY too much to ask for a judge to issue a stay so she can actually be investigated by a neurologist (hasn't happened in 3 years)? Why not actually TEST for PVS, since there are doctors who have examined her and said that she is not a PVS case? Why not make sure she doesn't actually feel pain, since it's not agreed that she doesn't?

-=Mike

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

It looks like this is over. At least I can feel relieved that this could never happen in Canada, if I happened to be in the same situation.

[Guest MikeSC]

It looks like this is over. At least I can feel relieved that this could never happen in Canada, if I happened to be in the same situation.

And I feel ashamed of something my country has done.

 

Truly and deeply ashamed.

-=Mike

[Boon 0]

As much as I don't care for Jon Stewart's politics, they said something quite interesting on the Daily Show. When the republicans weren't in control, they were all about less gov't intervention. Now that they are, it seems like they can't keep their hands out of anything.

 

As a pretty conservative guy, I believe that the gov't should not have been nearly as involved as it has been.

 

For that "checks and balances" reference- the legislation should have never even been passed, b/c the judiciary had already ruled. I understand the bill was passed and it allowed the Schindler's to take it to the Supreme Court, and that's what kills me. For once, it's the legislature stepping on the toes of the judiciary. At least they've been consistent with the rulings.

 

Truly and deeply ashamed? Mike, I'm normally with you on a lot of stuff, but I think you're really trying to empathize with somebody that you don't even know, while a few pages back you ripped on somebody for saying that they hated her mother. The people making these calls do not care about Schiavo, they care about pushing the right to life agenda. I have no problem with pushing the agenda, but don't hide behind the smoke and mirrors of this woman that all of a sudden is a martyr.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I'm pretty sure President Bush cannot make a legal executive order saying "I want Terri Schiavo's feeding tube to be reconnected".

 

Via Wikipedia:

In the United States, The presidents have issued executive orders since 1789. There is no constitutional law or statute that explicitly permits this, aside from the vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and the statement "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" in Article II, Section 3. However, executive orders have legal force unless in conflict with a law approved by the legislative or a court decision by the judicial branch of government.

 

(..)

 

Until the 1950s, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the president could or could not do through an executive order. However, the Supreme Court ruled that an executive order from President Harry S. Truman that placed all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are allegedly furthering when making new executive orders.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Ashamed?

 

You should be happy we had such a system, that at least allowed for so many chances.

 

Fact is Mike, if your arguments held water, one of the federal courts would have heard the case.

 

Do you remember what you said yesterday? About having a federal court hear the case?

 

And hell Mike, I normally agree with you!

[Vyce 0]

It doesn't matter, he wouldn't issue an order anyway.

 

Bush doesn't REALLY care that much about this situation. He cares a little, I'm sure, based upon his religious beliefs, but honestly, everything W has done in this situation has been done primarily so his brother saves a little face.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Glad that's over. Now Congress can get back to important things!

 

I think that Barry Bonds fellow may have used steroids...

[NYU 0]

After reading through this entire thread, I just have a quick question for Mike:

 

What exactly does Michael Schiavo gain by now asking for his wife's death? Nearly all the settlement funds have been sucked dry. He's pretty much finished spending money in an effort to keep her alive. Other groups have been trying to contribute vast amounts of cash to do that exact thing, and he's turned down all of them. He has a different life now with a new woman -- it's not as if he needs Terri to die in order to continue with an extracurricular relationship and a revised sex life. He's already done a decent job doing so. What in the world could Michael Schiavo possibly gain by asking for Terri to finally die?

 

I think it's more likely to believe that Schiavo finally wants the hell Terri has been living in to end, on the basis that she -- herself -- did not want to live life in a vegetative state. Rather than believe that Schiavo wants Terri to die for absolutely no reason at all. He gets no financial restitutions. He could get a divorce if he so desired it, which he doesn't. He's had the option to wipe his hands clean of the entire situation, and he's chosen not to.

 

If he's not getting anything for being so heavily involved, why in the hell would he want to stay so heavily involved in the first place if he didn't truly care about her well-being?

[Guest MikeSC]

Ashamed?

 

You should be happy we had such a system, that at least allowed for so many chances.

 

Fact is Mike, if your arguments held water, one of the federal courts would have heard the case.

 

Do you remember what you said yesterday? About having a federal court hear the case?

 

And hell Mike, I normally agree with you!

In this case, the courts REFUSED to even listen. They did not listen nor did they even PRETEND to listen (the lack of even a stay to even consider this shows that they did not listen)

 

Hell, maybe the GOP should allow judicial filibusters. Give that branch some serious problems and teach the judges that they are not God. Maybe back the courts up so much that they won't have the time to make law.

-=Mike

[The Czech Republic 0]

They really should have let a neurologist see her first, but if it's true that she's as brain-dead as they say, I don't think she's gonna hop out of bed and say "So, what did I miss?"

[SuperJerk 0]

William F. Buckley weighs in on the Shiavo case...

 

March 23, 2005

 

The Great Quandary

Enough.

 

What was good was that the resources of the entire nation, so it seemed, could be aroused with only the end in mind of sparing — more accurately, prolonging — a single life. It was left only to mobilize the Seventh Fleet to level a thousand guns on the doctors engaged in removing the tubes from Terri Schiavo. Not since 6-year old Elian Gonzalez was ordered by the courts to return to Cuba, there to submit to a lifetime of servitude under Fidel Castro Inc., had there been such a mobilization of public sentiment.

 

 

What broke the back of the Free Elian movement was a social convention: deferral to the wishes of the father. He wanted Elian home, and traveled to Florida to pick him up after an eristic judicial storm — which ended with the simple daybreak that the future of a child is to be decided by his parents.

 

In the case of Terri Schiavo, orderly thought would have led us to believe that her treatment was the next of kin's to decide. But human concern for Mrs. Schiavo interposed qualifiers: The husband had attached himself to another woman, by whom another family had begun. This suggested a diluted moral, though not legal, authority of the husband. Then the father and the mother of the stricken girl argued to keep her alive — to keep her pulse beating. Terri is not, repeat not, brain dead, though she is unable to communicate. Meanwhile the courts of Florida were guided, or seemed to be, by precedents which treated as relevant only the absence of a living will by Mrs. Schiavo, and the legal recognition of her husband as head of the family. The two considerations estopped any movement by the courts to assume authority, as though she belonged to them.

 

Those many who pleaded to continue the patient's life emphasized the theoretical possibility of a cure, or a rehabilitation of sorts. On this point her parents argued most tenaciously. They released, over the weekend, tapes made of their afflicted daughter, which could be interpreted as showing Terri to be responding to stimuli of various kinds.

 

But the world was looking at a woman whose immobilizing heart attack happened fifteen years ago. An anonymous doctor declared flatly that she had a flat EEG — electroencephalogram, the brain wave test.

 

But the political impulse was heartening, even if the hopes voiced were falsetto science. What caused the political commotion was the sense that we were presiding over an execution. Terri Schiavo remained "alive," until we stopped feeding her. Then she began a fall through a trapdoor descending toward death. She was being committed to a death of an agonizing kind, surely? One that began with the removal of the tubes, and would continue until starvation and dehydration brought on the end of the heartbeat.

 

Some years ago, in a forum on euthanasia, my guest was the Reverend Robert L. Barry, who had studied the subject extensively. Father Barry argued that the deprivation of food and water brings on physical pain whatever else the human condition.

 

Was the court system in Florida, then, acquiescing in death by pain for Mrs. Schiavo? A doctor consulted by one television analyst brushed aside the question, in language not readily transcribed by a layman. He seemed to be saying that Mrs. Schiavo would not suffer pain as the term is commonly understood.

 

But that question was not directly accosted by the judge, who said only that Terri's rights had not been abrogated. It was unseemly for critics to compare her end with that of victims of the Nazi regime. There was never a more industrious inquiry, than in the Schiavo case, into the matter of rights formal and inchoate. It is simply wrong, whatever is felt about the eventual abandonment of her by her husband, to use the killing language. She was kept alive for fifteen years, underwent a hundred medical ministrations, all of them in service of an abstraction, which was that she wanted to stay alive. There are laws against force-feeding, and no one will know whether, if she had had the means to convey her will in the matter, she too would have said, Enough.

 

credit: http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200503231118.asp

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

They really should have let a neurologist see her first, but if it's true that she's as brain-dead as they say, I don't think she's gonna hop out of bed and say "So, what did I miss?"

I know your remark is largely facetious (rimshot!), but why bother with another neurologist? Even if another court-appointed neurologist were to assert her state as helpless, the family and politicos pushing this thing wouldn't accept it. They've been smacked with both the true facts of her health and the proven facts in a court of law for 15 years and it still hasn't convinced them. The mentality to let go just isn't there. They seem like nice enough people, but c'mon. It's over.

 

The parents are in fact filing a Supreme Court appeal next, of course, but that will probably be remanded back to the states by lunchtime tomorrow.

[Guest MikeSC]

After reading through this entire thread, I just have a quick question for Mike:

 

What exactly does Michael Schiavo gain by now asking for his wife's death? Nearly all the settlement funds have been sucked dry.

A clean divorce from his wife and whatever funds are left from the malpractice settlement.

 

Why you never seem to question why he stays married even though he has a second common law wife and two kids is baffling.

He's pretty much finished spending money in an effort to keep her alive. Other groups have been trying to contribute vast amounts of cash to do that exact thing, and he's turned down all of them. He has a different life now with a new woman -- it's not as if he needs Terri to die in order to continue with an extracurricular relationship and a revised sex life. He's already done a decent job doing so. What in the world could Michael Schiavo possibly gain by asking for Terri to finally die?

Considering all you said, where the fuck does he get off claiming to have spousal authority? He's made an utter mockery of the entire institution of marriage.

I think it's more likely to believe that Schiavo finally wants the hell Terri has been living in to end, on the basis that she -- herself -- did not want to live life in a vegetative state. Rather than believe that Schiavo wants Terri to die for absolutely no reason at all.

And I believe that with NO indication, one way or the other, that this is an impossible decision to make.

 

And that some doctors and nurses who have examined her or have dealt with her are saying she very well might not be in a PVS means that this is simply barbarism.

 

She hasn't a neurological exam IN THREE YEARS.

 

Life is supposed to mean something. And it CLEARLY does not any longer to a wide swath of the country.

He gets no financial restitutions. He could get a divorce if he so desired it, which he doesn't. He's had the option to wipe his hands clean of the entire situation, and he's chosen not to.

Which is REAL shaky. He is DAMNED determined to see her die --- to "honor the wishes" that he seemed to forget about for seven years.

If he's not getting anything for being so heavily involved, why in the hell would he want to stay so heavily involved in the first place if he didn't truly care about her well-being?

And at what point do you ask who has her best interests at heart? At what point do you state that a marriage that IS dead, and has been for years, holds far less sway than the ties of biological parents.

 

I can only hope that justice truly exists and Terri can find somebody in the next life who does care. She, sadly, struck out horribly on Earth.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

They really should have let a neurologist see her first, but if it's true that she's as brain-dead as they say, I don't think she's gonna hop out of bed and say "So, what did I miss?"

I must admit, I'd mark out if that happened.

[Guest MikeSC]

They really should have let a neurologist see her first, but if it's true that she's as brain-dead as they say, I don't think she's gonna hop out of bed and say "So, what did I miss?"

People with advanced Alzheimer's wouldn't either. She's handicapped --- and what I'm seeing here is the re-birth of eugenics as a legitimate argument.

 

And if Nancy suddenly decided that Ronald Reagan actually said he wanted to die years ago, I'd have serious doubts about that, as well.

-=Mike

[Stephen Joseph 0]

And if Nancy suddenly decided that Ronald Reagan actually said he wanted to die years ago, I'd have serious doubts about that, as well.

I doubt that. I really do. Unless Nancy was hooking up with someone else in the public light.

 

Anyways, I'm glad in a few days this madness will be over.

[Guest MikeSC]

And if Nancy suddenly decided that Ronald Reagan actually said he wanted to die years ago, I'd have serious doubts about that, as well.

I doubt that. I really do. Unless Nancy was hooking up with someone else in the public light.

 

Anyways, I'm glad in a few days this madness will be over.

I'm not.

 

A totally innocent person will be dead at the order of the gov't.

-=Mike

[NYU 0]

A clean divorce from his wife and whatever funds are left from the malpractice settlement.

 

He's had numerous chances to get a clean divorce from his wife. He didn't take it. Obviously, that's not what he's seeking.

 

And just how much of this malpractice settlement is he going to be getting? Considering most of the funds have been squandered already, I doubt it would be enough to justify going through this process solely on the basis of receiving a rather unimpressive sum of money. You're saying that he has absolutely no care about the best interest of Terri Schiavo here?

 

Why you never seem to question why he stays married even though he has a second common law wife and two kids is baffling.

 

Because then he still has an impact on Terri's status and what happens to her. Once he gets that divorce, that's it. He doesn't have any right to make a decision for her. He's kept his marriage to her so the parents wouldn't get primary rights over their daughter and thus keep her alive until she's nothing more than a stump with eyes.

 

Considering all you said, where the fuck does he get off claiming to have spousal authority? He's made an utter mockery of the entire institution of marriage.

 

Mockery of the entire institution of marriage? Perhaps I missed something here, but did Michael definitively cheat on Terri while she was still in perfect mental condition? Or did he go to find a new life companion only after years of suffering through Terri's condition and realizing he was never going to get her back to where she was ever again?

 

You know how when a spouse dies, the husband or wife does an appropriate amount of grieving then, many times, try to move on? Sometimes, they even find someone else to marry and spend their lives with. Mike, this is the same type of situation. Terri has provided him no comfort whatsoever in fifteen years. She can't talk. She can't move. She can't satisfy him sexually -- which, if you're talking about the insitution of marriage, should be a necessary criteria anyway. Even with Terri by his side, it would still be like Michael is alone. He can't move on and try to find a new companion? Try to start a new life besides pining for a person that's never going to mentally improve?

 

In my opinion, he cares about Terri. He wishes to see her improve but, unlike her parents, he is a realist. He realizes that's never going to happen. Going by what he said, she once wished that she would never be in the vegetative state she currently is. In order to make this so, he would HAVE to stay married to her. He would have to STAY married to her to, in essence, preserve the sanctity of marriage -- following through with the desires of the spouse.

 

And I believe that with NO indication, one way or the other, that this is an impossible decision to make.

 

But see, it seems as if there has been an indication. Michael, and two relatives of Terri Schiavo, have said she made it clear she did not want to live on life support. Even if you think Michael had something to gain by this -- what the hell would Terri's own relatives gain with her death? They wouldn't receive a penny! Why would they make something like this up besides just being bastards for the sake of being bastards?

 

You have Michael and two Schiavo relatives saying Terri explictly say this. Have the parents ever heard her say explictly that she DID wish to live on life support if she were ever paralyzed without the ability to do much of anything? Have they ever made this clear in court? You have one side saying she DID make her side known on an issue like this. You have the other side not even hearing a word about it while Terri was alive.

 

But it IS hearsay, either way.

 

And that some doctors and nurses who have examined her or have dealt with her are saying she very well might not be in a PVS means that this is simply barbarism.

 

Of course, there are other doctors and nurses that have the opposite opinion as well.

 

She hasn't a neurological exam IN THREE YEARS.

 

What's more likely? That the condition of her brain has IMPROVED over the past three years, or that it has stayed the same and possibly even WORSENED?

 

Sure, there's always a chance her brain might be improving itself. But it's a slim chance. A tiny chance. A chance that, for all intents and purposes, just isn't helpful. It would go against every single historical trend of medicine. And we haven't even seen Terri show any improvements in her behavior or physical stature that indicate that such a process has happened.

 

I don't think the idea that she hasn't had a neurological exam in three years matters much.

 

Life is supposed to mean something. And it CLEARLY does not any longer to a wide swath of the country.

 

Many in this country just don't want to see Terri live a meaningless life consisting of sitting in a chair without a cohesive thought in her mind, possibly even being held there against her own will.

 

Painting it that way, perhaps life DOES mean something to them.

 

Which is REAL shaky. He is DAMNED determined to see her die --- to "honor the wishes" that he seemed to forget about for seven years.

 

Again, he could just be damned determined to see her die TO honor her wishes. You say that he's unfaithful to the concepts of marriage -- then, when he actually DOES try to stay faithful to them, you say his attempts are a sham. How could he possibly win you over with his intentions at this point besides shunning any fundamentals of gaining a normal life and instead choosing to kneel by his 15-year paralyzed wife 24/7.

 

The seven year gap in forgetting her wishes seems odd to me too, but I don't think we know for sure he never mentioned the idea for seven full years. It may have just became a central issue after seven years of her paralysis instead.

 

And at what point do you ask who has her best interests at heart? At what point do you state that a marriage that IS dead, and has been for years, holds far less sway than the ties of biological parents.

 

Again, I bring up the case of a deceased spouse. Even if that husband or wife has died years ago, and the person has since moved on with their lives, they STILL have caring feelings for them. For all intents and purposes, Terri IS dead to Michael. She offers nothing more than a deceased person would. Yet, even though he has moved on with his life, he could still have caring feelings for her. He could want to see the best done for her, even if he has moved on with his life.

 

It's almost the same situation.

 

I can only hope that justice truly exists and Terri can find somebody in the next life who does care. She, sadly, struck out horribly on Earth.

 

Too dramatic.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

I can only hope that justice truly exists and Terri can find somebody in the next life who does care. She, sadly, struck out horribly on Earth.

-=Mike

Reincarnation=Eastern Religion=Hippie

 

HA, you've been found out...